HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Around the NHL XIX | Back in action! | Next Game: @ Jets, 3pm

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 03:58 AM
  #451
enviro61
Registered User
 
enviro61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsquanch View Post
This x 1000. Its been handled like an absolute joke by both sides.

But I still personally hold the PA more responsible in this ordeal. Everyone wants a healthy league, but the NHL clearly wants it more than the players.

The salary cap was one of the best things ever introduced in the NHL in terms parity, and Im glad they fought the players to the bitter end on that. We have a better, stronger league because of it. But the cap and salaries are clearly rising too fast, and something clearly needs to be done to balance things out.

The players still came out of that deal laughing all the way to the bank. They act like we're morons and dont realize how sweet a deal they've had for the last 6 years. They should just shut their mouths and accept the fact that they cashed in big. The good times are over and its time to sober up and face the reality that this isnt the NFL, MLB, or even the bloody NBA. Its the NHL. Moderation is needed to stay healthy.
I sincerely believe the players are less concerned about a healthy league than the owners. Players would want 30 year guaranteed contracts if they could have them. They don't care about balance and competitiveness in the league. They do not think what interests the fans is also in their best interest. The owners are more concerned with keeping fans entertained and the on-ice product.

Players want more money, security and benefits and that is all.

Contract length is the the primary issue at this stage and the "hill the owners will die on"'. I don't see how any fan could side with the players on this issue for the health of the game and their team. This more than any other reason makes me 100% side with the owners.


Last edited by enviro61: 12-07-2012 at 04:17 AM.
enviro61 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 08:27 AM
  #452
R2010
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 641
vCash: 500
I think the NHL should of clarified that the reason they hauled the make-whole provision off the table for future negotiations is that unless they get a 58 game season they lose a load of money from sponsorship. So if Fehr decides to wait it out till that 48 game point he is almost certainly going to get a worse offer.

R2010 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:01 AM
  #453
Suiteness
Registered User
 
Suiteness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Time to Rebuild
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
This mirrors the NBA situation from last year to a T. I think there's going to be hockey before the New Year with the players ended up on the losing end by their own fault.

Suiteness is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:08 AM
  #454
TeamRenzo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelphia Collins View Post
This league is a joke. I wonder why you are the 4th most popular sport in America?
It is far from the 4th spot.

NFL
MLB
NBA
NASCAR
MMA
Golf


Those sports are all far more popular in the US, hockey is maybe the 4th most popular team sport

TeamRenzo is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:19 AM
  #455
BK201
Registered User
 
BK201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamRenzo View Post
It is far from the 4th spot.

NFL
MLB
NBA
NASCAR
MMA
Golf


Those sports are all far more popular in the US, hockey is maybe the 4th most popular team sport
Exactly and that doesn't even take into account that high school level football, and NCAA level sports are more popular than the NHL.

BK201 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 10:29 AM
  #456
Suiteness
Registered User
 
Suiteness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Time to Rebuild
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BK201 View Post
Exactly and that doesn't even take into account that high school level football, and NCAA level sports are more popular than the NHL.
I don't know about the High School level but there's absolutely zero doubt that NCAA football and basketball absolutely blows hockey out of the water.

I don't think 1 out of 10 people in both Carolina's combined know of the Hurricanes or the game of hockey at all.

Suiteness is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:06 PM
  #457
BK201
Registered User
 
BK201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suiteness View Post
I don't know about the High School level but there's absolutely zero doubt that NCAA football and basketball absolutely blows hockey out of the water.

I don't think 1 out of 10 people in both Carolina's combined know of the Hurricanes or the game of hockey at all.
Yeah I don't know about high school football all over the states but for sure in Texas there is a high school football stadium that seats 23,000 people.

BK201 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:11 PM
  #458
ChocolateLeclaire
Registered User
 
ChocolateLeclaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BK201 View Post
Yeah I don't know about high school football all over the states but for sure in Texas there is a high school football stadium that seats 23,000 people.
As someone who works and travels to Texas frequently, I can tell you that HS football is bigger than NFL there. It's MASSIVE.

Friday Night Lights was not an exaggeration.

ChocolateLeclaire is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:23 PM
  #459
Tundraman
GoneCountry
 
Tundraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: North
Posts: 5,575
vCash: 500
I've clearly moved over to the owners side at this time. From recent reports, the NHL has offered up more money ($300M up from $211M) to cover existing contracts but asked for a longer term CBA in return to help them spread the cost over a longer period and also (I suspect) to get sponsors and fans on board.

What fans in their right mind want a contract shorter than 8-10 years? Which sponsors will want their brand tarnished by associating with a business that will face another farcical lockout or strike in 5-6 years?

The players are clinging to the ideology that they are giving up a lot by going from 57% to 50% and refuse to budge on anything else yet the damage that has already been done will far outpace any loss from future contracts caused by the reduced percentage over the term of a new CBA. The worse part is that a full 1/3 of these players (signed and unsigned) will probably never get another NHL contract anyway and many more will be in their declining years and wouldn't have received top dollars either. So who are they fighting for? Will the kid in College or Juniors now who might earn $1M per year when he graduates to the NHL really notice the theoretical $70,000 more he might have earned. Maybe it's the 2-3 guys per team who might have earned $7-10M who would be affected most. Is anyone supposed to shed a tear for them if they get a few grand less on their deal? Not even counting what the players have already lost this year, one could easily argue that 50% or a healthy NHL is as good or better than 57% of a damaged one. Just do some math!

Chris Campoli doesn't even have a contract yet he speaks on TV for the players? Some of the other PA spokesmen wouldn't be missed if they never played another NHL game either. Get real guys! The rank and file short career players had better wake up and take control before it's too late. They will be the big losers in this game. Donald Fehr has no long term investment in the NHL or NHLPA.

Tundraman is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:44 PM
  #460
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,727
vCash: 2391
Which hurts more, losing 70k (7%) of a 1M salary, or the owners each giving an extra $2M (a little more than 1%) to their $130M+ investment?

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 01:50 PM
  #461
Upgrayedd
Registered User
 
Upgrayedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 500
i wonder if anyone inside these meetings has discussed how two groups would split $0 evenly because as it stands that is where this entire league is headed!

Upgrayedd is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:02 PM
  #462
JonnyMacSen
Divide and Conacher
 
JonnyMacSen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,965
vCash: 500
Well we now know a bit more detail on the players demands

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/1...ve-fehr-audio/

JonnyMacSen is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:06 PM
  #463
saskriders
ColinGreening's#1fan
 
saskriders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,567
vCash: 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Which hurts more, losing 70k (7%) of a 1M salary, or the owners each giving an extra $2M (a little more than 1%) to their $130M+ investment?
It is so ridiculous from both sides.

I wonder if they know what the average salary in the richest countries in the world is.


BTW Erik Johnson and JVR are getting ripped apart on twitter, and it is pretty funny

saskriders is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:26 PM
  #464
Tundraman
GoneCountry
 
Tundraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: North
Posts: 5,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Which hurts more, losing 70k (7%) of a 1M salary, or the owners each giving an extra $2M (a little more than 1%) to their $130M+ investment?
Let's forget that most of these owners have deep pockets outside of Hockey and just look at Hockey operations.

In most cases it would hurt the owners more since many teams are already losing money even spending near the bottom cap. Many franchises are not self sustainable at current costs. For most of the current individual player there may be no effect on their future contract at all. Top players will get top dollars and the rest divide what's left. A yearly 5-7% growth in hockey related revenue (HRR) is supposed to take care of the players. This isn't equally true for the owners since ever rising costs affect the owners much more than the players who have everything covered for them by the team (travel, accommodations, meals, trainers, doctors, rinks, equipment etc... on top of their paycheck.

Tundraman is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 02:33 PM
  #465
saskriders
ColinGreening's#1fan
 
saskriders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,567
vCash: 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tundraman View Post
Let's forget that most of these owners have deep pockets outside of Hockey and just look at Hockey operations.

In most cases it would hurt the owners more since many teams are already losing money even spending near the bottom cap. Many franchises are not self sustainable at current costs. For most of the current individual player there may be no effect on their future contract at all. Top players will get top dollars and the rest divide what's left. A yearly 5-7% growth in hockey related revenue (HRR) is supposed to take care of the players. This isn't equally true for the owners since ever rising costs affect the owners much more than the players who have everything covered for them by the team (travel, accommodations, meals, trainers, doctors, rinks, equipment etc... on top of their paycheck.
I really don't care who it hurts in hockey

Both sides are extremely fortunate, and their problems are nothing compared to the problems millions face every day


If they weren't so petty they could have had a deal done a while ago

saskriders is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:23 PM
  #466
OmniSens
@OmniSenators
 
OmniSens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,983
vCash: 106
Send a message via Skype™ to OmniSens
What a heart touching story from Fehr...Is the lockout down yet?

OmniSens is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 11:35 PM
  #467
Milan the God*
king karlsson
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,806
vCash: 860
Haven't read through this particular thread, but I'm sure optimism isn't great right now. And I don't blame anyone after what happened Thursday. The rollercoaster this past week has been crazy. We first go from barely talking, to a players-owners only meeting that many speculated wouldn't do much. Then we hear it goes well. Next up, we hear Wednesday doesn't go according to plan and it's going downhill. Thursday we get more bad information. The suddenly we hear we're extremely close. Then we hear we're very far apart.

I think a deal gets done to save this season. In reality, they aren't that far away. Not far enough to cancel an entire season over. I don't like Fehr. I don't believe he cares if there is a season or not. I think he just wants to add "got a great deal from the NHL" to his resume. That could be the only way the season falls through.

I believe everything that was put on the table this past week will be put back on the table. When push comes to shove about cancelling an entire season of hockey, the NHL will make those assets available again. In my opinion, the NHL has bent enough to get a deal done. It's the PA's turn. 6 year max contracts, 10 year CBA plus what the NHL offered in their last deal which has been pulled off the table.

It will be interesting to see what side reaches out to talk to the other side. I have no idea what side that will be. The NHL feels like they've offered their best, and reaching out is doing no good because they have to wait until the PA is ready to offer more. At the same time, the PA feels like the NHL should reach out because the NHL ended talks, not them. Hopefully talks pick back up on Monday or Tuesday so we can get this going sooner.

Again, I'm not trying to be optimistic or pessimistic. This is just how I see the whole thing playing out. I could be wrong. I thought we'd have a deal by now earlier in the week.

Milan the God* is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:08 AM
  #468
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,727
vCash: 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tundraman View Post
Let's forget that most of these owners have deep pockets outside of Hockey and just look at Hockey operations.

In most cases it would hurt the owners more since many teams are already losing money even spending near the bottom cap. Many franchises are not self sustainable at current costs. For most of the current individual player there may be no effect on their future contract at all. Top players will get top dollars and the rest divide what's left. A yearly 5-7% growth in hockey related revenue (HRR) is supposed to take care of the players. This isn't equally true for the owners since ever rising costs affect the owners much more than the players who have everything covered for them by the team (travel, accommodations, meals, trainers, doctors, rinks, equipment etc... on top of their paycheck.
What hurts the owners most isn't how much the players make, though. The real problem is systemic; they've tied franchise costs to the average franchise's revenue without considering that the extreme asymmetrical distribution of revenue across franchises puts most franchises well below this calculated average. Getting the players down to 50% of HRR doesn't change that systemic problem. It treats the symptoms of that problem (teams bleeding money), but it doesn't solve it. The owners could substantially alleviate the problem by simply redistributing their own revenues at no expense to the players.

So while it is true that the hockey operations of many franchises are bleeding, it isn't because every team has one guy making $1.75M/yr that the franchise can't afford.

I use $1.75M/yr because that's approximately how much the Make Whole ($211M according to Bob McKenzie) costs each franchise per year over four years.

CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:13 AM
  #469
Tundraman
GoneCountry
 
Tundraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: North
Posts: 5,575
vCash: 500
I agree that even the drop to a 50% share of HRR isn't enough to make some franchises viable. At best, that will only save something in the range of $3 to 4M per team which will quickly be eaten up by the fast rising lower and upper caps. It makes no sense that when Ottawa spent near the top of the cap 2 seasons ago (the year of the players for draft picks) the team would have had to play 2 rounds of the playoffs to break even. There is still obviously something wrong with the model / % split. 50% paid to the players is probably still too much for most teams. The original 43% offer made by the NHL early on in the negotiations may not be so ridiculous as it sounded at first. Possibly some of the team costs spent on players should be counted in the players 50% share. A team like the Sens that nearly fills the rink every night (if they spend to the max) shouldn't need the playoffs just to break even. An owner (or investors) should expect some return when a team enjoys success. It seems to me the top of the cap needs to be a lot less and only rise no more than half the players % increase of the new HRR. The goal should be that all teams who draw roughly 80% of capacity and spend to the (new) max cap come close to break even or better at season's end. The playoffs then should become a bonus for both the players and the owners. (Tweaks are permitted ). This wouldn't save the franchises that pull in small crowds every night year in year out and don't deserve to be in the league but it would allow small market teams who draw well but don't have the big corporate sponsors to spend as much as the big city clubs to attract and keep good players without going in the hole.

Tundraman is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:22 AM
  #470
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,727
vCash: 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tundraman View Post
I agree that even the drop to a 50% share of HRR isn't enough to make some franchises viable. At best, that will only save something in the range of $3 to 4M per team which will quickly be eaten up by the fast rising lower and upper caps. It makes no sense that when Ottawa spent near the top of the cap 2 seasons ago (the year of the players for draft picks) the team would have had to play 2 rounds of the playoffs to break even. There is still obviously something wrong with the model / % split. 50% paid to the players is probably still too much for most teams. The original 43% offer made by the NHL early on in the negotiations may not be so ridiculous as it sounded at first. Possibly some of the team costs spent on players should be counted in the players 50% share. A team like the Sens that nearly fills the rink every night (if they spend to the max) shouldn't need the playoffs just to break even. An owner (or investors) should expect some return when a team enjoys success. It seems to me the top of the cap needs to be a lot less and only rise no more than half the players % increase of the new HRR. The goal should be that all teams who draw roughly 80% of capacity and spend to the (new) max cap come close to break even or better at season's end. The playoffs then should become a bonus for both the players and the owners. (Tweaks are permitted ). This wouldn't save the franchises that pull in small crowds every night year in year out and don't deserve to be in the league but it would allow small market teams who draw well but don't have the big corporate sponsors to spend as much as the big city clubs to attract and keep good players without going in the hole.
This isn't how the league should think, either. You could have teams at 80% capacity with tickets that are so cheap that the franchise only come close to profit if the cap represents a 70% owners - 30% PA HRR split.

CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 07:21 AM
  #471
enviro61
Registered User
 
enviro61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milan the Great View Post
Haven't read through this particular thread, but I'm sure optimism isn't great right now. And I don't blame anyone after what happened Thursday. The rollercoaster this past week has been crazy. We first go from barely talking, to a players-owners only meeting that many speculated wouldn't do much. Then we hear it goes well. Next up, we hear Wednesday doesn't go according to plan and it's going downhill. Thursday we get more bad information. The suddenly we hear we're extremely close. Then we hear we're very far apart.

I think a deal gets done to save this season. In reality, they aren't that far away. Not far enough to cancel an entire season over. I don't like Fehr. I don't believe he cares if there is a season or not. I think he just wants to add "got a great deal from the NHL" to his resume. That could be the only way the season falls through.

I believe everything that was put on the table this past week will be put back on the table. When push comes to shove about cancelling an entire season of hockey, the NHL will make those assets available again. In my opinion, the NHL has bent enough to get a deal done. It's the PA's turn. 6 year max contracts, 10 year CBA plus what the NHL offered in their last deal which has been pulled off the table.

It will be interesting to see what side reaches out to talk to the other side. I have no idea what side that will be. The NHL feels like they've offered their best, and reaching out is doing no good because they have to wait until the PA is ready to offer more. At the same time, the PA feels like the NHL should reach out because the NHL ended talks, not them. Hopefully talks pick back up on Monday or Tuesday so we can get this going sooner.

Again, I'm not trying to be optimistic or pessimistic. This is just how I see the whole thing playing out. I could be wrong. I thought we'd have a deal by now earlier in the week.

I sort of think the same way that a deal can get done but there are some sticking issues that may be bigger issues than we think. 5 yrs versus 8 years on contract limits might only seem like a few years but that is substantial. You are talking a difference of 40% and what the means on the $$ side of things I am not sure but it is likely substantial if that is the hill the owners are willing to die on.

I also think pride may be an issue that comes into play. The ownership feels insulted and mistreated in the negotiation process, not unlike the players. Based on some of the owners comments it's almost as though they feel the PA is negotiating in bad faith by picking and choosing what to take and changing their tone from one day to the next. Whether or not it is all part of the tactics and the owners responses are merely posturing tactics themselves I do not know. Regardless, I think both sides need to feel like they 'won' to secure a new CBA and right now neither side feels like they are winning though it appears the players think they are closer than the owners.

enviro61 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 12:53 PM
  #472
2Cowen
Registered User
 
2Cowen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,318
vCash: 920
So the same idiots who signed long term contracts and than suddenly requested a trade and dishonour their contract now want some sort of security? ****ing greedy *******s.

2Cowen is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 01:24 PM
  #473
Caeldan
Moderator
 
Caeldan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,550
vCash: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
What hurts the owners most isn't how much the players make, though. The real problem is systemic; they've tied franchise costs to the average franchise's revenue without considering that the extreme asymmetrical distribution of revenue across franchises puts most franchises well below this calculated average. Getting the players down to 50% of HRR doesn't change that systemic problem. It treats the symptoms of that problem (teams bleeding money), but it doesn't solve it. The owners could substantially alleviate the problem by simply redistributing their own revenues at no expense to the players.

So while it is true that the hockey operations of many franchises are bleeding, it isn't because every team has one guy making $1.75M/yr that the franchise can't afford.

I use $1.75M/yr because that's approximately how much the Make Whole ($211M according to Bob McKenzie) costs each franchise per year over four years.
The only bit I think the owners should concede to though is a revenue sharing agreement that evens out thing such that a % of salary to HRR is viable for all teams.

Obviously it needs to be such that there's incentive to strive to be at the top of the pile (and the fact that support staff costs aren't part of the % would be part of it). Also would need to be cleaner accounting from owners who own their buildings, etc.

Caeldan is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:07 PM
  #474
Flamingo
Registered User
 
Flamingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 500
There were some tweets today about four teams mobilizing or sending get-ready calls to their staff. Anyone hear if the Sens have reached out to staff?

Not sure why I'm setting myself up for disappointment again, but live and don't learn, that's me.

Flamingo is offline  
Old
12-11-2012, 01:56 PM
  #475
Upgrayedd
Registered User
 
Upgrayedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,186
vCash: 500
Believe it when they actually drop the puck for a reg season game, likely more lockout propaganda....at this point it's daily the only thing missing are the poster's dropped from the sky lol

Upgrayedd is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.